Impact of habitat diversity on the sampling effort required for the assessment of river fish communities and IBI

被引:0
作者
Chris Van Liefferinge
Ilse Simoens
Christian Vogt
Tom J. S. Cox
Jan Breine
Dirk Ercken
Peter Goethals
Claude Belpaire
Patrick Meire
机构
[1] University of Antwerp,Department of Biology, Ecosystem Management Research Group
[2] Agency of Nature and Forest,Department Aquatic Ecotoxicology, Institute of Ecology, Evolution and Diversity
[3] Province of Vlaams-Brabant,Department of Applied Ecology and Environmental Biology
[4] Research Institute for Nature and Forest,Centre for Estuarine and Marine Ecology
[5] Goethe University Frankfurt am Main,undefined
[6] Laboratory of Aquatic Ecology,undefined
[7] Catholic University Louvain,undefined
[8] Ghent University,undefined
[9] Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW),undefined
来源
Hydrobiologia | 2010年 / 644卷
关键词
Flanders; Biodiversity; Pisces; Sampling distance; Fishing protocol; Index of Biotic Integrity;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The spatial variation in the fish communities of four small Belgian rivers with variable habitat diversity was investigated by electric fishing to define the minimum sampling distance required for optimal fish stock assessment and determination of the Index of Biotic Integrity. This study shows that the standardised sampling distance of 100 m was not always sufficient to collect most species present. The required minimum sampling distance seems to be correlated with habitat diversity. In homogeneous streams, a mean sample distance of 282, 452 and 572 m is necessary to capture 80, 90 and 95% of all species present, respectively. In heterogeneous streams, these sample distances decrease to 217, 380 and 503 m. Hence, at least 300 m should be sampled to catch most species present with a single-pass sampling method. However, our results show that a 100 m sampling distance as presently used in the Flemish monitoring programs is sufficient to accurately describe the ecological quality since differences in IBI evaluation between adjacent stretches could at least for some rivers be explained by differences in habitat heterogeneity.
引用
收藏
页码:169 / 183
页数:14
相关论文
共 103 条
[1]  
Angermeier PL(1995)Estimating number of species and relative abundances in stream-fish communities: effects of sampling effort and discontinuous spatial distributions Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 52 936-949
[2]  
Smogor RA(2000)An Index of Biotic Integrity characterizing fish populations and the ecological quality of Flandrian water bodies Hydrobiologia 434 17-33
[3]  
Belpaire C(2004)Experimental reintroduction of woody debris on the Williams River, NSW: geomorphic and ecological responses River Research and Applications 20 513-536
[4]  
Smolders R(1986)The movement pattern and density distribution of perch, Aquaculture and Fisheries Management 17 49-57
[5]  
Van den Auweele I(2008) L., in a channelized lowland river Fisheries Management and Ecology 15 409-415
[6]  
Ercken D(1996)Migration of rheophilic fish in the large lowland rivers Meuse and Rhine, the Netherlands Hydrobiologia 341 133-144
[7]  
Breine J(1990)Relationships between mesohabitats, ichthyological communities and IBI metrics adapted to a European river basin (The Meuse, Belgium) American Fisheries Society Symposium 8 123-144
[8]  
Van Thuyne G(1978)Fish communities as indicators of environmental degradation Ecology 59 507-515
[9]  
Ollevier F(2000)Habitat structure and stream fish communities Archiv für Hydrobiologie 149 307-326
[10]  
Brooks AP(1990)Habitat occupancy patterns of juvenile fishes in a large lowland river: interactions with macrophytes Environmental Management 14 661-671